User talk:Cobblet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

VA/E Regions discussion[edit]

Since you've made the changes, could I implore on you to archive the (pretty long) discussion? pbp 00:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really feel like it, to be honest—I did just archive most of that discussion already, along with half the page as a whole. You might want to talk to V3n0M93—he might not have been too thrilled with me closing the keep-proposals so quickly, actually. And honestly, that so many keeps are being voted against with no rationale given is really bothering me atm, and I'm starting to question whether my contributions on that project are going to lead to anything productive in the end. Cobblet (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Modern Benoni[edit]

A new article on the Modern Benoni is a good idea, but you didn't do it quite right. When you WP:SPINOUT a section, you can't empty the entire section except for a link as you did in Benoni Defense#Modern Benoni. You have to leave enough text behind so that the reader can tell what the thing is. Requiring a reader to follow the link to find out what the Modern Benoni is is wrong, as a basic principle in encyclopedic writing, or any writing for that matter. One example is Ruy Lopez#Exchange Variation. (This isn't necessarily the best example, but it is an example.) Quale (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

FIFY. Cobblet (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message-glad to see this article has got some legs underneath it at last!

For a long while, I had wanted to do a page devoted solely to the Modern Benoni, but lack good sources or access to those works I used to have readily available.Hushpuckena (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cobblet. Your article is very good, the best new chess article I've seen in a long time. I think it is also the best chess opening article we have, and we should try to improve the articles on the other major openings to match its quality. Quale (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad you guys like it. Cobblet (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm amused[edit]

I kinda thought I was doing too well and would shortly overlook mate in one...but not THAT soon LOL Double sharp (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The old joke: you're lucky it's mate, otherwise you'd have lost your queen... ;-) Cobblet (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, at least I'm playing decently and not blundering too often :-) Double sharp (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
...and then I make a horrible move (Nf5). Oh well.
Since you were going to win my queen I thought to spare myself the unbeauty of resigning and spare you a mop-up operation and walked into checkmate. :-) See you in the next game. Double sharp (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Grats and thanks for finishing this. Volunteer Marek  20:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Never give up :) Cobblet (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S. a4 was just a losing doesn't seem to lose. Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Chess openings[edit]

Don't worry about your replies to me. I think they're fine, and I am far more concerned that my replies to you may express unfounded irritation that is not helpful to the discussion. You are a strong advocate for your views, and you are very knowledgeable about chess so they are highly informed opinions. I respect that. My replies often tend to be too long, and I should curb that because it tends to stifle discussion rather than promote it. You ask some good questions which I won't answer tonight because I'm a bit burned out, but I do want to say that the nature of Wikipedia discussion emphasizes disagreement and underplays areas of agreement. My guess is that we probably agree on most chess-related things in Wikipedia, but that's hard to see because of how things work here.

I did want to say that your suggestion to merge Flank opening and Irregular chess opening is interesting. You're right that irregular is an old, basically obsolete term, so it would probably be smart to reorganize. I'm not sure that merging those two articles would be best, because while they overlap they aren't the same. I was thinking in a somewhat different direction. Maybe those articles should be replaced by redirects to the relevant sections of chess opening. Originally they were broken out of that parent article, so this would just be returning to where we were six or so years ago. While today I criticize premature splitting of articles, I guess I was of a different mind about it then.

Actually I probably thought the articles would be developed more, but that hasn't really happened. Aside from providing more space for diagrams, the articles don't serve much purpose because the openings in those classes don't have much in common. They are basically a definition and then a list of openings, and don't add much if anything over what we already have in chess opening. I think we created them because I didn't want chess opening to list every chess opening article we have, but I thought there should be some categorized lists easier for a beginner to use than List of chess openings. I tried to limit the openings mentioned in chess opening to the most significant ones and relegate the rest to Open Game, Closed Game, etc. (There can be considerable argument which openings are "significant". Giuoco Piano is significant mostly because every young player learns what it is, but it wouldn't make the top 10 or maybe even top 20 in terms of importance in top-level tournament and match play. My view is that this is significant enough for mention in chess opening, but not everyone agrees.) The other reason we created them is symmetry. The other sections have (and deserve) split main articles, so it seemed like these more minor sections should have them too. This might not be a good enough reason. Quale (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I added some comments about your excellent suggestion that we say something about the evolution of chess opening theory on my talk page. Just to confuse things I will also reply here to finally give you a brief answer to your question about notability of chess openings. As a general rule, I'm not a fan of subject-specific notability guidelines. In some areas they seem unavoidable (WP:PORNBIO), but as much as practical I think sticking to WP:GNG is best. (My preference may not be the norm, as several times people have suggested on WT:CHESS that the project should have notability guidelines for chess bios and for chess openings.) Even with these guidelines, not every subject that passes the general notability guidelines deserves a standalone article, primarily because some small subjects are better discussed in context with a larger one that subsumes them. In other cases there isn't much useful context, and then I think a small article is fine if the subject is notable. (Many editors have a strong aversion to short articles that I just don't understand. Paper encyclopedias usually have many short articles and a few larger ones, and I think that's fine in Wikipedia too.)
My opinion is that the unusual first moves by White fall into this class. I think they deserve mention in Wikipedia, but there is no good larger context to gather them in because they have very little in common aside from being rarely played chess openings. It would be WP:UNDUE weight to put them in chess opening and cause balance problems in that article. (But I think that we should include links to the individual pages in a section on "Unusual first moves by White", and redirect irregular chess opening to that section.) Putting them together in a basically artificially constructed conglomerate parent article seems to serve no useful purpose other than avoiding some editors' allergic responses to small articles. That suggests to me that individual articles are best, taking into consideration that there are a limited number of them. This applies only to White's first move. Unusual Black defenses in general do not deserve individual articles, because there is always a good larger context to discuss them in, namely the White opening or Black defense that they are a variation of. If they are so insignificant that they don't deserve mention there, then they don't get covered in Wikipedia. Quale (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Modern Benoni[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Modern Benoni you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sasata -- Sasata (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Modern Benoni[edit]

The article Modern Benoni you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Modern Benoni for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sasata -- Sasata (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles[edit]

I'm trying to understand what changes to Vital Articles need to go through a vote. I see you've moved a few articles between lists without discussion, but you also made a proposal for moving various edible plants from the Food list to the Plant list. Was the plant proposal just because of the large number of affected articles? Do I need to wait for my proposal to move Cotton from Agriculture to Crafting to go through, or I can go ahead and make the move (note that it will stay on the Technology list, just in a different section)? Would there be any reason not to reorganize the edible plants currently listed under Plants (as I suggested doing in my comment on your proposal)? Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Additions/removals definitely need to go through a vote, but moves don't. I prefer to notify people of large-scale moves, but I'll make small reclassifications that I think will likely be uncontroversial. Of course, sometimes I'm wrong about the latter; Afadsbad made a better suggestion on where to place surveying, for example. I think moving cotton is a good idea (sorry for not having commented on it earlier) and I doubt anyone will object, so feel free to move it; on the edible plants, I might wait just a little longer. Ultimately, the votes are !votes and the real point is to make sure we have a consensus. Cobblet (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I've gotten kind of busy, and haven't had time to do much with the potentially vital plant articles we've been discussing. It might be a few days before I can get back to it. Plantdrew (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
No worries. We're in no rush. Cobblet (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the link[edit]

to the chess caps conventions. Primergrey (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


Cobblet, I appreciate you taking my whining seriously and making editing convention discussion subsections for each of them at WT:CHESS, but unfortunately, I think the motivation you & I share to achieve has no appetite (as mentioned before on my Talk) with the other members. (And, nothing can be done without wider participation i.e. consensus.) I'd like to see the WP:CHESS list of accepted conventions expanded by the new items, but I'm feeling that is wishful thinking. So this will end up another failed attempt. So I think we s/ forget about it. Thanks for the effort though. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. What made you afraid to touch 'O-O-O' (vs) '0-0-0'?

Oh, that should obviously be 0-0-0. I just didn't want to get into any discussion of algebraic notation. And I do apologize if I am interpreting your comments unnecessarily personally. I realize that it is easy to interpret my comments the same way as well. Cobblet (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I actually think there's nothing stopping us from having the discussion anyway, as long as we continue to do it publicly on WT:CHESS. As long as we're not reaching conclusions too quickly before anyone else has had a reasonable chance to respond, silence by the other people who frequent the page should be interpreted as tacit acceptance. We're allowed to move pages if we post on the talk page and not a single person responds, for example; here at least we'd establish a rough consensus between two editors.All right, why do things without asking people when we can just ask them!

Chat between Ihardlythinkso and me[edit]

I wrote my reply before your last post & strike-out, but I'll include it anyway ...

Yeah, taking personally is always bad idea. As far as which of the seven items I'd like to see WP:CHESS editing convention accepted guidelines for, well, all of them! (Am I misunderstanding your Q?) About pushing that through without wider Project participation, I'm really uncomfortable paralleling that with page moves or other things like that. I don't think any new guides will stick otherwise. (A random editor violates a guide, we revert it and explain it's an accepted Project convention, he goes and looks and finds minimal Project discussion participation and complains, then a major Project player assures him the pertinent guideline isn't really Project-endorsed because there was never wide consensus, disagreeing with "silence = tacit accpetance" for something like that at Project and Wiki-wide level. So there we'd be back to square-a1.) I'm happy you came along with new willpower behind making consistent editing conventions. But I honestly don't know what can be done when facing lack of interest that consensus needs. (It's a real downer. I just don't think ramming thru will have staying power. And several of the issues are not clear either what to do; Bubba for e.g. has at least one contending preference. I think you & I agree on all the five though, I do have a sneaky discomfort that you are right about Nimzo-Indian, I've been feeling endash has been wrong for several months now; I just want more proof to satisfy remaining doubt. [And I think "Bogo-Indian" probably follows down the same path.] I think you & I are in agreement about all of the five subsection points, except the proposal how exactly to handle "vs." (vs) endash in all cases isn't 100% clear and isn't fully ironed out re the different cases, and I don't think how to handle "Grandmaster" is either. But I think we tend toward the same way on those.) For sure Quale would have to come on board for any update to the WP:CHESS accepted editing convention guides, or I wouldn't have any belief in them. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, If we're drafting an MoS, I expect it to cover more than the seven things we discussed on the talk page; I'm asking whether people would like to see a justified recommendation on "1.e4" vs. "1. e4" for example. And if you and I are given a blessing to proceed by the other active members of the Wikiproject (feel free to alert anyone else who might want to have a say in this), with a guarantee on our part that they will be able to comment and suggest changes to our proposal (I wouldn't even mind if they wanted the right to veto anything, but they have to decide whether or not to give themselves that power; somebody could abuse it) before it goes live, this might just get off the ground at last. Cobblet (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh. (You meant expanded issues, too.) Yes, I'd like to see that. (But I intentionally left "1.e4 (vs) 1. e4" *out* of the list of seven, because I knew the issue is too involved for the Project to be willing to make decisions in that issue area. I picked what I thought was the less-involved stuff/low-hanging fruit, plus frequent confusion like re Grandmaster/grandmaster ["World Champion/world champion" s/b added to that issue]. The "1.e4 (vs) 1. e4" topic is more complex IMO, because for me it isn't a simple binary choice for chess-articles; for me what is better for readers' eyes changes depending on the environment, and by "environment" I mean whether moves/lines/games are presented in bold or non-bold. So for me what is best plan becomes more complex. For me I don't see any universal binary decision without drawbacks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
It would definitely be prudent to tackle the low-hanging fruit first, especially as it seems we might be on the same page for many of them. I'd suggest that if you and I can't agree on an issue (and I brought up the example of 1.e4/1. e4 because this is one of the things most likely to be controversial), it's better to agree to disagree and not even present a guideline to the community at this point. What I appreciate about working with you on this issue is that you've worked on all the chess articles and you've seen all the places where exceptions might need to be made to the rules; and that you won't hesitate to bring up all of them. I like consistency—I've found the MoS to be surprisingly useful in my own writing—and I have strong (read: naïve) opinions on what I think is good practice, but I think you'll do an excellent job in making my task as difficult as possible. This dynamic could be exactly what we need to make a useful, comprehensive set of guidelines :) Cobblet (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I agree, and am willing. There's no rush of course, so that would allow us the time for patience between ourselves and hearing out both parties if we don't agree on something. I think you have a better grasp on MoS than me, and more current chess books/up-to-date knowledge. But a big deal on edit conventions for the Pedia is just plain readability too, and as you pointed out consistency, and I think it's good we both have conviction about the latter (it's a good base point of relevant commonality for the job). I'm not sure why you like to, or the necessity of, updating the MoS as a result of proposals ... I'd be happy getting acceptance by WP:CHESS members for adding some add'l accepted conventions to the existing short list posted. (What is reason you feel MoS needs s/b involved?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. One of my most exciting chess experiences was beating Arthur Bisguier in a simul in the early '80s. (Can't remember how many he was playing.) I was on the Black side ("black side"!? - yuk! ;)) of a Ruy, it was a wide-open exciting game and I was perplexed when he resigned (but I figured it out later!). I also played Black side of a Ruy against Petrosian in another simul; it taught me what a rodent must feel like trapped and squeezed and dinner for a boa. (He was very nice though, so it was a pleasure playing him outside the awful feeling of being all wrapped up in the game. I think he even gave me a chance to resign, since he was repositioning his knights when he didn't need them and when I didn't have any useful moves left.)
Impressive! I would've liked to meet Petrosian: one of the most original players who ever lived...
I'm not sure his level of English, we didn't speak, when he came by my board after playing 1.d4 on the board ahead of me, he played 1.e4 on my board & I did a quick look up at him in pleasant surprise (I knew KP openings better than QPs!) and he gave a charming smile back at me. (What a nice man. I also got a great autograph from him in one of my books on his full-page B&W photo. He made his sig exceptionally big & beautiful w/ a blue felt-tip!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the proposal below after having only read WP:PROPOSAL. And certainly getting our policy added to the MoS would be the only sure-fire way of settling the issue, since otherwise WP:LOCALCONSENSUS would always be left dangling over our heads. But I do see that WP:BIRDS for one has its own policy on capitalization that has not been formally incorporated into the MoS. I'd leave it to WP:CHESS to decide which path we should pursue. After slogging through pages and pages of vitriolic MoS-related discussions I realize that I could be opening up a can of worms, and I certainly wouldn't want to do so without the full support of the wikiproject.

Anyway, how best to start? I was thinking I'd make a new page, where I'd list all 17 issues you originally brought up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Chess notation plus the three more you brought up just now (chess titles, hyphens/dashes in opening names, 0.5 vs. ½), and you could give me your thoughts on them (in your own time, of course; I'm in no rush either). Then I'd be able to respond. Cobblet (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me, am quite concerned though, re members solicited by you haven't yet registered their say. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
But they're actually weighing in on WT:CHESS, which is even better. Perhaps we should open more issues to discussion there? Cobblet (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's better. But I have my doubts now about ... several things. I think the discussion will go low participation and no consensus, just like always, and I think this is biting off more than WP:CHESS will chew. (How about taking one issue as a litmus, 0-0-0 vs. O-O-O, and try and get progress/consensus on that one thing. And if progress/consensus can't be gotten on that single item, then what is outlook for a collection of items? I have big doubt on progress on even one item.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It's happening slowly, but Quale's just given us his blessing. And I believe we are already close to consensus on the forum regarding 0.5 vs. ½ and chess titles. Cobblet (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Very slowly. I suggest as a litmus test (i.e. to see if anything can be done vis-a-vis conventions) to first resolve "0-0-0" vs. "O-O-O". (Some passion out there, as maybe you've seen.) That convention is a simple unambiguous one (nothing to confuse, like determining whether a noun in a sentence is proper or not). If the project can't resolve it, then how could it any others? I can see plusses & minuses re attention on one convention at a time, or multiple in a package, so I don't have suggestion re that, but both seem predicated on at least some member interest, which is really in question. (If multiple in a package, then I'd like to see castle notation up front, because of what I've mentioned already.) What matters more than choices is just consistency. But you know that. (E.g., I can see argments for either +5−3=2 or +5=2−3. Sometimes draws count toward reaching a total score. Sometimes not.) If I say anything more I'm bound to start repeating myself. If I say anything more I'm bound to start repeating myself. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. Perhaps the principle is "low-hanging fruit" (easy/unambiguous) first in line. WLD vs. WDL would probably be a good No. 2 candidate. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll draft something over the weekend for you to look at. Actually with respect to +/–/= nobody responded to my last suggestion—that we could make that notation unnecessary if we tabulated tournament and match results instead, just as we do for other sportspeople. But maybe that's beside the point, since even such a table would have the same ordering issue. I think my original point—that Template:Infobox boxer lists draws after losses, and we should follow their lead if for no other reason than to maintain consistency across Wikipedia—still stands. Cobblet (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
But how well thought-out, or in harmony w/ sources, is the boxing Infobox convention? (I don't know a thing about it. If it's rather arbitrary over there however, why be consistent w/ them? [They might want to be consistent w/ *us*!]) Also the least ambiguous stuff, as mentioned, s/ go first I think. And see this too is what I don't get: If the MoS is OK with something like titles, re "Grandmaster/grandmaster"/"World Champion/world champion", it doesn't do any good to simply restate the MoS; that logically would end up as "no change" and the same mess we have today. [The only thing that can really have an impact on anything are concrete examples. And that s/b easy to do since there are many replications of same/similar sentence structures using those phrases.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. Dr. Leonard McCoy (ST OS), alone in a room after Kirk's departure: "If I jumped every time a light came on in this place, I'd end up talkin' to myself."

Chat with everyone else[edit]

User:Bubba73, User:Toccata quarta, User:Quale, User:Sjakkalle and User:Brittle heaven, I take it that you guys have little or no interest in participating in a discussion to establish stylistic conventions for the presentation of chess articles. (I really can't blame you.) But would you welcome an effort by me and Ihardlythinkso to try establishing such guidelines for at least the less controversial situations? If you do, the two of us would:

  1. Draft an initial proposal;
  2. Start an RfC on WT:CHESS, so we can discuss it and seek consensus on any controversial issues;
  3. Revise the draft and advertise the RfC to non-project members, e.g. at WT:WPMOS.
  4. Make final revisions and enact the policy as part of WP:MOS.

If you'd like to see this happen, are there any specific things you would like us to address and also to not address? (When I say the latter I'm thinking of particularly controversial issues such as 1.e4/1. e4 for algebraic notation.) Cobblet (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favor, if other people will be doing (almosat) all the work. I thought you did a good job of explaining the White/white capitalization distinction and other similar matters on WT:CHESS. If you and Ihardlythinkso would like to hash out a project style proposal I would welcome it. Quale (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Double entries in bold?[edit]

Huh? Are you saying that every entry on two lists should be in bold? Because there are HUNDREDS of topics on the Level 4 list that are also on the Level 3 list that are currently not in bold. In fact, the running consensus is that every entry on Level 3 should also be on Level 4. What am I missing here? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User:GabeMc: That is exactly what I've done on the level 2 and 3 lists—see the intro on WP:VA. I think it's useful information. At some point (i.e. once I have time, and once the most obvious problems with the level 3 list get addressed) I'll do the same thing for the Level 4 list. Cobblet (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, right on, but I have to ask; was this discussed with other editors, or was this a bold move on your part (no pun intended)? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't. You don't like it? Cobblet (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it's fine. I just never noticed it before. Thanks for explaining it to me. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
After having thought about this idea I realized that this will mean that every topic on levels 1, 2 and 3 will be bold, right? Since, in theory, everything on Levels 1-3 should also be on Level 4. Am I confused about something, or is that right? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The articles are only bolded on a list if they appear on the lists higher than the one in question. Does that answer your question? Cobblet (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Then how will you treat topics that are on 1, 2, 3 and 4? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know :) Could put them in even bigger text, or do italics. What do you suggest? Cobblet (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I suggest that this will be a nightmare to maintain, but as long as you don't mind then I guess there is no harm in it. Have you considered colour coding? If we used 3 colours (excluding green and red) and black, then each level could have their own text colour. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Which is why I haven't done it yet... colours are an interesting idea, but all the items are linked, so people already have them set to their own preferred colour. I don't know if it's possible to override that user preference. Cobblet (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, you reverted me twice, so in a way you are doing it, but yeah, that's a good point about the links; I hadn't thought of that. How about inventing symbols, or just using roman numerals? A template person could easily make some I, II and III icons, which could represent the highest level in which the topic is included. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Templates ain't my area of expertise though. Cobblet (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Really though, this should have been discussed beforehand, IMO. Since you are reverting me without gaining prior consensus I tend to think that we should put this on hold pending discussion with several involved editors. It's unworkable, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • You were bold, I reverted, now please start a discussion thread before unilaterally implementing your ideas. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Since you don't like it, fine, let's not do it. You can start a discussion if you like. Cobblet (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


Thanks! I'd been impressed with you too - I noticed that you had been making a lot of excellent nominations and comments. I'd been thinking about nominating some of those female scientists myself - I'd noticed how few women there were in that category. I hope they'll go through - it seems some people are very reluctant to support straight adds. It is rather frustrating when people propose something that you find just completely wrong-headed, isn't it? I had that sort of moment with the proposal to replace Charles I of England with George III of Great Britain - I ended up writing several hundred words on why Charles I was more important and not just notable for being executed!

I did have one question that I'd been wondering about: what's the deal with the "keep" (rather than "remove") proposals for various regions? I take it that there has been a big cull of regions, and these are the ones that there's disagreement over. So if there's no consensus, does that default to "remove" or "keep"? Neljack (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. I've commented there. Neljack (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Can I implore you not to give up on Vital Articles? It can certainly be frustrating - people take some very odd positions, often without even bothering to explain them - but a lot of your recent proposals look likely to succeed. I, for one, think that the project would be immeasurably poorer without your thoughtful contributions. Hope to see you back there soon! Neljack (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Well enjoy your break, and I hope to see you back when you feel ready. Thanks again for your excellent contributions. All the best, Neljack (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have issues with me then duke it out on my user Talk[edit]

Please think twice next time you want to imply that I am a hypocrite. (Because I'm not. Neither am I a liar, which accusation admin Drmies accused me by telling me that my Talk page was "filled with lies".) I highly resent that kind of irresponsible, off-hand, ill-considered remark-crap. (I believe in being able to back up whatever I say, in detail if necessary, and I think others s/ do likewise. The culture on WP is for drive-by false accuses, and quite frankly, I've been more than sick of that culture for more than awhile now.) FYI; thanks for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL. When somebody calls you names it's a personal attack; when you call people names you justify it as a description of their behaviour. No wonder you usually get the last word in any conversation you enter. It's a shame so many Wikipedians act the same way you do. I have no idea how Sjakkalle has endured on Wikipedia for as long as he has: people didn't behave like this eight years ago. I should've gotten more done here back then... alas. Cobblet (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Cobblet, humor me, OK? I really want to know how you can have NO COMMENT when MaxBrowne valdalizes an article, calls Toccata "anal", uses "flush" in an editsum, engages in edit-warring instead of discussion per WP:BRD, belittles Toccata further with "quibbling over words" remark when Toccata was conscientiously abiding by WP:WTA, and then you have the gall to pick on me when I use a snippy editsum pointing out his edit-warring in lieu of discussion, and then preach "civility" to me as though I'm the one, and further that I'm responsible for contributing to the cesspool hostile environment on the WP which didn't exist 8 years ago but am somehow responsible. How is it that you seem to be undetective of all of that incivility and non-collegiality from MaxBrowne, but then choose to come down on me for a justifiably snippy editsum. Then again, pontificate about the absence of civility on the Wikipedia due to editors "like [me]". And don't give me this TLDR crap -- I know you are a good reader and that is fake argument. You can do better than that in intellectual argument (or can't you?). Perhaps you just shouldn't address to my attention if you can't handle it fairly and squarely, huh!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
If I had any respect for you, it is largely gone now. (And you have only yourself to blame. [If you wanna explanation of that, just ask, I have no problem giving detailed explanation.]) Tisk. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd delete your remarks again to save yourself the embarrassment, but have it your way. This is the most pathetic thing anybody's ever written on my talk page. Where is your dignity? I'm sorry I can't make you reflect on your behaviour. Cobblet (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

VA/E: Distillation and Filtration[edit]

I'd close the discussion as added, as there is a consensus for doing so, 'cept I don't know where to put those articles. In what section do they go? pbp 16:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89, it's a tough question. I think the best thing to do for these and some other separation processes we have (chromatography under chemistry; centrifuge under Technology/Machinery and tools) would be to group them together in some sort of chemical engineering category, but we don't really have such a thing atm. Maybe the simplest thing to do is to just make a new sublist under Chemistry/Basics called "separation processes" and include the four items I mentioned.
BTW, I noticed fluorescence was added under analytical chemistry. It really doesn't belong there; the best place for it would be in the sublist underneath electromagnetic radiation, IMO. Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, feel free to move that, close the discussion, and reorganize sciences as you see fit. This is all Greek to me, so I defer to you pbp 01:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Done. Nice work keeping that talk page under control, btw. Cobblet (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


I'm not sure what started the snarkyness, or who caused it, but can we at least agree to stop? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:GabeMc, I leave for almost two months, and the very first comment I receive upon my return is you complaining about my behaviour; and now you're the one asking for a truce. Can you see how I might find it hard to believe you're being sincere? I'd much rather just leave again and not have to read anything you have to say about me. I wouldn't have visited WP:VA/E if pbp hadn't explicitly invited me to close a thread myself, which I tried to decline; you're already making me regret it. Sure, it takes two to tango, and I can definitely be snarky at times, but you really seem to have a beef with me in particular. Cobblet (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Cobblet, I really do not have anything against you. IMO, you started getting on my nerves by trying to undercut nearly every proposal that you didn't start, and you started 95% of them! Then you got really personal and insulting against me (there are numerous diffs). I just !vote oppose when I disagree with someone, I don't try to convince everyone that the proposal is flawed, or that editors need to attempt to convince me. I wish you could collaborate, but it seems that if its not your idea, then you need to adapt the idea to your liking. Maybe I shouldn't have jumped on you right away, but the very first thing you did was undermine Dagko, and start yet another "boy, I'm not too sure about this add proposal". Would it be so bad if you just let a diversity of editors share the responsibilities versus putting yourself in a position of management? Would it be so bad to just let Dagko's edit remain and discuss alternatives? There is a greater good here that involves several editors feeling like they have a say in the project, but when you shoot-down bold edits for apparently no reason other than you disagree it can be discouraging. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
User:GabeMc, on the VA/E talk page there are currently five proposals not started by me where our !votes differ. In two of them (geyser and talc) you !voted in support; I supported the other three (Milgram experiment; C. elegans; amphibole/olivine/calcite). In other words, not only is it an enormous exaggeration that I try to "undercut nearly every proposal" I don't start (don't forget there have been proposals that we both supported, as well as proposals where I supported and you didn't vote either way), it turns out that within this small sample, I've voted against them less frequently than you have. I don't understand your accusation that I undermine proposals by not !voting – the point is that in such cases I'm neither completely supportive nor opposed to the proposal. Carlwev and I are hardly the only people who do this.
When I make bold changes that you don't like, you don't hesitate to revert them. But when I revert Dagko's edit (which was accompanied by an apology) you find it necessary to reprimand me. In a curious reversal, you first complain about me bringing up your previous voting patterns in a different discussion before doing it to me yourself.
Then there's the way you characterize my attempts to start discussion as seeking attention or control. In the six months I've spent working at WP:VA, I've gotten along well with everyone else: you're the only person who's taken exception to the way I express myself. I admit I do sometimes get frustrated at the lack of substantive, informed discussion in our process. I don't think !votes can meaningfully substitute for actual discussion when the objective is to build consensus. I'm not given to expressing my opinions with delicacy, but am open to correction if I sound overly harsh: please don't confuse my tone with a lack of interest in collaboration. If that were true, I'd do what many others have done: go build my own list.
I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to shake the feeling that you just don't like me. If I can't persuade you to change your opinion of me, it's better that we continue not to work together. It was a big reason why I left the first time. Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Look, this is really one-sided, IMO; you seem to be implying that you were never rude or snarky to me, which is not at all the case. All I can promise you is that, moving forward, I'll do my best to treat you with respect; that's all. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
In my first response to you I said "I can definitely be snarky at times." You still seem intent on superimposing your impression of me over my actual actions. Cobblet (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, no offense, but I'm sure I missed a point or two in your walls of text. Look, please just try to assume good-faith. We butted heads a few times, but I do not dislike you in the least. In fact, I think you are one of the best assets to VA that we have, and I hope you remember that I welcomed your participation with open-arms even though you came-in right before the Regions proposal was to go live and almost completely took it over; the other editor I was working on the proposal with, the editor who suggested it, completely stopped editing VA soon afterward. Bottom line: I would like to move-forward, so even if you do not want to be civil to me I will act civil towards you. If its an apology that you need then fine; I'm sorry I was snarky to you, I really am. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ideas for vital articles (10'000)[edit]

Hello fellow vital project member, I had many ideas for additions to the vital 10'000 whilst away and busy. But thought I would ask others opinions of the almost 100 articles that came into my mind before flooding the project talk page with them. If you have time let me know which articles you like and which you dislike, I am still looking for removals as well by the way. (I listed my ideas on my own talk page, here). Carlwev (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your move[edit]

You're pretty strong on policy. And even though there is disagreement potential between us, I do respect your consistency and degree of conviction in doing things right. Now that I've buttered you up (</joke>), can I play devil's advocate on a content policy/guideline issue that has cropped up. (Don't look. Please just play along. You will be more neutral that way). 1) I assume you believe adding links to games at is OK by policy. (Can you confirm? OK as mentioned I presume your answer is that it is consistent w/ policy to do.) 2) (Oh gosh I'll stop here, I don't know if you'll play devil's advocate or not. Can you let me know.) p.s. (Changed subject.) If I had to make a guess based on your wikipresence if you are a KP or QP player, I would make the guess that you are a 1.c4 player. (How good was my instinct?) Me? I play 1.d4, but prefer not to follow up w/ c4 anytime (c3 instead of course), prefer to push for e4. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Sorry, I'm not at all strong on policy – I don't know what the relevant policies are for this, and I'm not all that interested in learning what they are. 2. 1.d4 and 2.c4. Best by test. Cobblet (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
OK that was a surprising answer. (Unexpected.) But I know you are stronger interpreter of policy than most. (Doesn't mean you have to be 100% to earn that repute.) Let me ask another way ... Q: You added links to games at in your Modern Benoni article. Do you feel policy allows you to do that? (Hey it's not a trick question. How many links to games at are in chess-related articles? Oh, just 1000s!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. For Black against e4, I guess you're Sicilian player. (Huh?) And against d4, Modern Benoni. (That was easy!) How close?
1. Difficult to say when I don't know what the policies are, but sure. I'd like to know where this is going. 2. Sicilian yes, but Nimzo against 1.d4. Cobblet (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow (Nimzo!). I think you think I'm trying to "trick" you. I'm not. And I thought later the obvious ... Your Modern Benoni article is Good article status. (So, any issue w/ linking to games would have come out then. I think that's reasonable don't you?) OK so here's the deal. (BTW, you know I'm a believer in linking to I in fact protested a bit when the linking to that site's Openings Explorer was removed from the chess openings Infobox. I made the case that the paywall argument didn't justify removal, since before hitting the paywall there is much free and useful info available. But no one backed me up so Goodbye Openings Explorer!) WP:ELNO says don't link to sites requiring Java. But game replays at all require Java. (Golly I think I may have answered my own Q ... The game replays require Java, but probably not the game score listings. Do you think that is the logic?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually I don't think you can see the game score without Java enabled, but you could download the pgn file. In any case, WP:ELNO says "should generally avoid", not "must avoid", so WP:CHESS isn't violating anything. Under WP:YOUTUBE it specifically says there is "no blanket ban on linking to YouTube" even though one generally needs Flash in order to watch Youtube videos, so clearly WP:ELNO should be interpreted not as a strict rule but as a recommendation. WP:CHESS has good reason not to follow this recommendation in this specific situation. Cobblet (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that reply that helps a lot. (I'm tempted to turn my Java off and test if the gamescore is still available. Do you have reason to guess wouldn't be available? [I mean, why would Java be needed to just list text?])
  • After reading your answer about "should" vs. "must", it seems kind of inconsistent that Openings Explorer link removal from openings Infoboxes was defended in this thread with the argument "WP:EL says to avoid them, so we are avoiding them. [...] --SubSeven (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)". (In that thread I was the only advocate to include. Subseven strongly wanted to disclude, and Bubba sided with disclude. There was no other interest from others; I presume just apathy. So the "consensus" was 2–1 to disclude, but I never agreed with the arguments given as they didn't make sense to me. Anyway that's not why I'm here at your thread but if you have opinion about consistency please tell.)
  • I just restored some ELs at article Antichess to some java applets at site Could you swing over there for me to see if it plays OK on your computer ("Losing Chess")? (Those applets give an immediate intrinsic feel for the chess variant for readers ... a great aid to understand a game in a way that reading rules of text just can't do alone. (So I'd like to include those applets in that article, but a user at the Talk is fighting me because they require Java.) Anyway, that's my complete story. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. At the moment my own Java isn't working. I'm getting a message telling me I have a security setting blocking it. (Never got that error before. I don't know right now what security setting is being referred, my browser security settings all turned off and I still get the error. Anyway ...) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC) p.p.s. OK I got that fixed. (Turns out under Java 7 I had to add the pathguy site to the a java's Exception List.)
Anyway it seems to me my argument for accessing the applets requiring Java is sound. (But the argument seems to be a judgement call, and the user who wants to fight with me is from POV of strict policy and isn't interested in caring about my usefulness arguement. (He doesn't appear to be a serious player to me.) If I end up at WP:ELN arguing my case, how can I expect non-players to understand the value of my utility argument?) I need help all around here, maybe you can see as much. OK any help in any way at any time is appreciated. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
These things should probably be decided on a case-by-case basis – the cost-benefit analysis is going to be different in each case. I don't like our reliance on (if they ever fold or put up a paywall, that's a huge pain for us) but I don't have a better idea and can only encourage Wikipedia to get that PGN viewer implemented more quickly. To be frank, I can't say the applet gave me a good feel for suicide chess – I played 1.a3 2.Ra2 3.Ra1 4.Ra2 5.Ra1... and watched the computer shuffle pieces on its first two ranks for 20+ moves. If somebody on the Internet's taken the time to annotate a game, linking to it might be just as useful, and would also remove the point of contention. Trying to argue your case to people who probably weren't aware chess variants exist is not likely to yield anything productive no matter how much support you get from WP:CHESS. Cobblet (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for trying that applet out, and thanks for your thoughts. (I misspoke when I said the applet would give a good feel for the game, what it does is give a good feel for the rules/how the pieces move; Friedlander wrote them to demonstrate move rules - they're acknowledged to be easy to beat and have very little strength.) Interactivity is a great advantage (participation) to understanding, computers are designed for that, so exploitation of the applets seems to me to be a match made in heaven, especially for playing a new game versus replaying someone else's. Again thanks for all the thoughts. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks again for your objective assistance on my Qs -- your comments were helpful. (You even tried out the applet. Thanks.) I'm disheartened to pick up the advocacy for those links at the article at this time however, due to Quale ragging me for being the "bad editor" there when the situation is clearly the reverse. But that's neither here nor there, I know.

If I could pick your brain on something else unrelated, since your Engish skills are also of strong repute, when you have time (no rush at all) bring up article Babson task and search on "white captures" and "black promotions". (There is one instance of each.) I simply cannot decide if "white" and "black" s/b capped or small in those expressions, in spite of earlier discussions re "White vs. white" etc. And why of course. If/when you have the time/interest. Thank you again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC) (p.s. Since you're Nimzo and I'm Torre, if we played we'd end up at A46 [2...e6 3.Bg5 c5 4.e3] right? So w/ at least four major lines from there, where would the game go? [Curious!])

Both adjectives, so both lower case. And I didn't tell you what I do when White doesn't play 3.Nc3 – I play the Ragozin. So the game would actually go 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5. Cobblet (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I remember now (a simple solution, from NY Times Manual of Style, if it works! - I was looking at the Talk:Bubba73 discussion between you & GretDrabba, he pulled diverse sources and you found the adjective rule in NY Times Manual of Style). I don't mean to review those discussions (I don't even know for sure what conclusions between you & Gret). The thing that prompted my Q here is lingering instinctive doubt re adjectives that also seem to possess ownership (e.g. "white capture" and "black promotion" aren't things of color but refer to actions owned; "the white player" vs. "the White player" especially throws me, and the copula stuff "Joel Benjamin was white" vs. "was White", etc. -- I don't know where that all ended up as mentioned, but again am not here to open it up on your Talk or elsewhere). So why was I confused then to ask? I dunno, maybe my memory faded. (Sorry.) p.s. So after my 3.Bg5 what do you do? (3...Ne4 I'll bet!). And if you were White, we'd end up 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6, what'ya do then? (I'm not trying to play you, just curious where we'd end up in book!) Cheers and thank you again for your flexibility and objective help stuff. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of objectivity: while what I said regarding the copula was a plausible argument for using the upper case, the fact is that different people capitalize differently in that particular situation. In fact, I think I checked more sources later and I'm pretty sure a majority of people (Edward Winter included) prefer the lower case in "Alekhine was white". (I should really have done that beforehand – sorry to distort the picture.) On a somewhat related note (this is something I wanted to tell you and never got a chance to), I will suggest that "White" should really only be used as a substitute for a player's name (like our policy says) and never as a substitute for "the white pieces" – that latter usage (which crops up in phrases like "Alekhine had White" or "played White") is not documented in any dictionary I checked, including the OED; it should probably be treated as a colloquialism. Meanwhile yes, 3...Ne4. And 4.Nf3 against the Triangle. Cobblet (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh Jeez -- now I'll prob have to link this thread here w/ my other links discussing White/white convention. ;) I still don't know what conclusion there was (none?), but these look and seem somewhat odd to me sometimes (and is there resolution? are there multiple rules of thumb or just one? etc.) ...
  1. This line is good for White.
  2. The burden of initiative falls on the player who has white.
  3. The burden of initiative falls on the White/white player.
  4. In the final round Benjamin played white.
  5. In the final round Benjamin was assigned white.
  6. In the final round Benjamin would be White/white.
  7. There was more space on the white side of the board.
Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. 3...Ne4 4.Bf4; and the other game 4.Nf3 Nf6. For most of my tmt/postal life I played 1.e4. But not anymore. (Curious what line of Sicilian. [I bet you are a Dragon player!?])
Rather than inject any more of my own opinions into this matter (since the thing I said above is also not true), I'll refer you to [1], [2], and [3], and let you draw your own conclusions. In the Lame Torre (as Avrukh calls it) I'd play 4...c5 with the idea of 5...Qb6, and my book (at least what I can remember) ends basically there. Meran with 6.b3 against the Semi-Slav. I did play the Dragon a long time ago; but these days it's the O'Kelly. Cobblet (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
For me the Torre seems to be an eternal spring of fresh ideas. (For example in our openings sequence, after 4...c5 5.e3 Qb6, a friend of mine discovered a new move, and all kinds of tactics sprout, ... I actually won a postal game in approx 10 moves with the line he found. // In game B, not sure now 6.b3 falls in - what's the continuation after 4.Nf3 Nf6? Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
What's "new"? I thought everything's been tried there. The Meran is 5.e3 Nbd7 and now I play 6.b3. Cobblet (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I know ECO gives only 6.Qc1, but a friend & I analyzed 6.Nc3!? and all kinds of tactics ensue. (That was before strong engines were cheaply available.) Oh, I beat Dunne in a USCF Golden Knights using the Torre. Your 6.b3 in game B is interesting. Before that, I like a line I found in a Donaldson/Silman book 5...a6 (they called it "rare but solid system"). Sometimes I like to play even earlier 4...dxc4. I'm all ears any comments you have re any of these moves. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Just another example of why ECO has been totally useless for serious players since the late 90s, I'm afraid. 6.Nc3 is now recognized as White's only interesting try, but it's well met by 6...Qa5. And 5...a6 in the Meran is a main line now (used by Anand against Gelfand in their world championship match); I'd still play 6.b3. Cobblet (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, Informant stopped producing in the late 90s (didn't they?). A slow-moving paper project, they can't compete w/ online databases and keeping up w/ latest trends. (Is that what you mean?) Oh, I see 4th edition is on CD-ROM now. Anand didn't fare so well w/ 5...a6 (+0−1=2). I find Anand's play uninspiring anyway (what did you think of the latest match? it seemed to me his play was passive excepting the one last desperate game where he blundered; even I saw the blunder live and was incredulous how he could make it). Where did you spot published analysis re 6.Nc3? I found all my notes from analysis years ago and would like to compare after 6...Qa5. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No, I just mean that the quality of the analysis in ECO has declined significantly since the series was first introduced back in the day, to the point where it's now useless. Anand's playing much better in the Candidates right now, although he's had luck on his side. Check Avrukh's book GM Repertoire 11 – Beating 1.d4 sidelines (Quality Chess, 2012). Cobblet (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think I've seen over time also, how the contributor list fell from all GMs, to including IMs and even sometimes just Masters. // Am going to have to purchase that book (Beating 1.d4 Sidelines) -- thanks for id'ing it for me. // I just discovered this sentence in FA First move advantage in chess: "The year after his book was published, at the finals of the 1940 U.S. Open tournament, he scored only one draw in his four games as White, but won all four of his games as Black." (And there are many more examples there, where the text is also not a quote. There's also several cases of text stating how many times a player has "received Blacks" and "received Whites", too [what to do with them? see First move advantage in chess#Tournament and match play -- they were all in caps before my edits]). I know you have researched and feel lowercase is better, but there is no determined convention re White/white yet at WP:CHESS, even though Quale stated at WT:CHESS that you had "covered it very well". (I guess that's my point - it's not so easy or clear and there is not only no agreed convention yet, there are no rules of thumb to follow either, for ProjChess editors to follow, for consistent application. So we continue to have [and will continue to have] inconsistent applications in articles. All we really have is a collection of pretty intelligent discussions here and there about same. Nothing definitive, and no real conventions, let alone ones documented in their own small WP:CHESS space with real examples from articles that can be used as rules of thumb for common formerly perplexing cases. [So for Quale to state what he did at WT:CHESS, doesn't help anything, and in fact contributes to ensuring nothing will ever be resolved down to agreed convention with said documentation. And that is what always happens here, so we end up with editors like Quale stating things that imply issues are resolved, when they aren't. That kind of unhelpful contribution to discussions just serves to perpetuate the issues, like, forever, not resolve them. If he's not interested in the topics enough to participate to real resolution, just faux resolution, then fine; but he shouldn't be contributing to the discussions then since his thinking is more obstacle than help to resolving to good conventions.] There are virtually no conventions at WP:CHESS, excepting piece names are lowercase. There needs to be a space devoted to them, as mentioned, at WP:CHESS. On O-O vs. 0-0, consensus seems to have favored 0-0, but there's no recognition of said consensus until WP:CHESS has a spot saying so, should an editor disagree or be confused, they shouldn't have to read a lengthy discussion and be told "See, if you read that, there's a consensus present." I always like to deal in concrete specifics, not much else is "real". So the rules of thumbs I'm speaking of re convention examples from real articles should feature for example this from the Anatoly Karpov article: "[Karpov] is a Russian chess grandmaster and former World Champion." in order to demonstrate Grandmaster/grandmaster and World Champion/world champion for similar instances, of which there are very many indeed.) Thanks for being nice to me Cobblet, I've enjoyed chatting w/ you about these various things. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Indian rulers before 1500[edit]

Hi Cobblet. Thanks for your kind words. I'm not personally very familiar with ancient and medieval Indian kings but Redtigerxyz does seem to be knowledgeable on the topic. He responded on my talk page and also suggested particular kingdoms that can be added. Gizza (t)(c) 12:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)